Warcraft 3

I don't have Warcraft 3, but I have the Diablo and Starcraft Battlechests. Blizzard is pretty much the only game developer I trust to make great games every time. (Although Valve is damn good too)

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I'm not saying they'd be anything like in europe. Likely built on site, only in city seiges, and made likely almost wholly of bendable trees. Heck, they might not eve have cut them down. I just don't see them not figuring that out at all, you know? They had atl-atls, so they understood the concept.

The atlatl is an extremely rudimentary weapon. The fact that it had been used since around 400,000 BC shows how much of a primitive weapon it was in contrast to what europeans had, which was pretty much my point.

While they did know the concept of leverage, they seemingly did not know the principle of torsion or didn't apply it to their warfare.

That being said, the aztecs did not have anything that could resemble a trebuchet or get close in capabilities. Therefore, giving them Trebuchets in AoE II: The Conquerors expansion was a blatant disregard for historical accuracy in favor of "balanced gameplay".

The way they included native americans and aztecs in AoE III: The Warchiefs is pretty much how I wanted them to include the Aztecs and Mayans in The Conquerors. So far as I've been able to notice, in AoE III: The Warchiefs, the Aztecs and other native americans do have their characteristic tactical disadvantages but have some other advantages of strategic order, which is how it really happened.

CKX wrote:

Also side question, how is the asian dynasties since you have it, is it a good game?

Yes, it is in my view. It has man interesting features. For example, the Indians, Chinese and Japanese have a very interesting economy: they have something similar to plantations but that can be switched to produce wood, food or gold at will. They advance ages by building wonders which grant different benefits: new technologies, more unique units, increase the attack of nearby units, increase the rate at which workers pick-up resources, etc. They have to earn a resource called "export" which allows them to get assistance of European nations through an embassy (although it's a bit silly when you're playing Indians fighting British and you get to get a british regiment through export). And have very interesting tech trees.

Some new maps are added such as Decan (Indian subcontinent), Siberia, the route of Silk and Japan.

It's nice. But I would recommend buying it together with The Warchiefs as the Warchiefs includes new artillery units, enhanced tech trees and so on.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

That, fact is, when a game gets more features, it gets more complex

Okay. Um.... I can't tell what you're saying ehre. Is that supposed to be bad to you? I mean hey, if you're not good enough or smart enough to be able to comprehend a more complex game mechanic, then that's fine. It can't be helped, really. Not your fault. I blame the schools.

Ever heard of what happened to NFL Blitz? Thats what i mean...

Same thing for NHL, to me NHL 94 is still better than 09.

Same thing for Heroes of Might and Magic, went downhill after the 3rd.

Btw, when you consider, sequels and prequels, like in Age of Empire, you have to consider quality for the time, not just, a direct comparison.

Jesus wrote:

Btw, when you consider, sequels and prequels, like in Age of Empire, you have to consider quality for the time, not just, a direct comparison.

We're comparing AoE III to the previous titles, not AoE in regards to its competition.

AoE III is necesarily better in many aspects so you have to explain why you believe that, inspite of all the improvements, you believe that AoE III is inferior to its predecesors.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Btw, when you consider, sequels and prequels, like in Age of Empire, you have to consider quality for the time, not just, a direct comparison.

We're comparing AoE III to the previous titles, not AoE in regards to its competition.

AoE III is necesarily better in many aspects so you have to explain why you believe that, inspite of all the improvements, you believe that AoE III is inferior to its predecesors.

Ok, let me reformulate my statement. For me, AoE III, was the less fun game of the series, and the worst considering the time it was released.

Jesus wrote:

Ok, let me reformulate my statement. For me, AoE III, was the less fun game of the series,

This is much better. Matter of personal taste.

Jesus wrote:

and the worst considering the time it was released.

And now, based on what?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus wrote:

Ok, let me reformulate my statement. For me, AoE III, was the less fun game of the series,

This is much better. Matter of personal taste.

Jesus wrote:

and the worst considering the time it was released.

And now, based on what?

Based on the fact that, now Civilization IV seems like the way to go for that type of game. But back then, AoE II was more of a solo champ in the market.

Jesus wrote:

Based on the fact that, now Civilization IV seems like the way to go for that type of game. But back then, AoE II was more of a solo champ in the market.

Ciilization IV is not an RTS game, actually they're substantially different kinds of games. And I wouldn't say Civ IV is superior, in fact I found paying Civilization: Call to Power more pleasant than Civilization IV, and I like more playing AoE III than Civilization: Call to Power.

Yet, they're different games.

Civilisation is in NO WAY an RTS! AOE doesn't try to be that involved in economy or covilisation building at all! You literally CAN'T win that way. You HAVE to build ana rmy witht he INTENT of crushing your foes, and then actually DO it. In Civ, you can go through without building one military unit (Not recomended, but still).

Quote :

Yes, it is in my view. It has man interesting features. For example, the Indians, Chinese and Japanese have a very interesting economy:

AND the Japanese have the samurai! Don't you DARE forget that.

Quote :

Btw, when you consider, sequels and prequels, like in Age of Empire, you have to consider quality for the time, not just, a direct comparison.

And I do't know about you, but for the time I think AOE3 was pretty damn god for what it was trying to do. FIRST RTS to have a physics engine. It did the home city thing, also first. For the time, it was great. Acting was shit, as was story, but tat's almost par for the course for games. (The story can be considered personal opinion, but most have the personal poinion that it kinda sucks.) My point is AOE3 had many things that were superior to its coimpetitors. Graphically it was nice. LOVELY ship battles. I think the population limit was too tiny, but aALL of them have that issue. (Don't get me started on AOE's 50 pop limit....)

Quote :

and the worst considering the time it was released.

Again, for the time it was releaseed, it had nice graphics, a physics engine which no one had yeet, and was in a time period rarely touched upon.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

AND the Japanese have the samurai! Don't you DARE forget that.

Yup, but most civilizations can get the Ronin as mercenary, which is a mercenary samurai.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And I do't know about you, but for the time I think AOE3 was pretty damn god for what it was trying to do. FIRST RTS to have a physics engine. It did the home city thing, also first. For the time, it was great. Acting was shit, as was story, but tat's almost par for the course for games. (The story can be considered personal opinion, but most have the personal poinion that it kinda sucks.) My point is AOE3 had many things that were superior to its coimpetitors. Graphically it was nice. LOVELY ship battles. I think the population limit was too tiny, but aALL of them have that issue. (Don't get me started on AOE's 50 pop limit....)

Seconded. The naval battles in AoE III are quite nice, and have the best tactical configuration any AoE title has ever had by far - all carry troops, all have varied artillery instead of "special bonus" against other ships, they've got a more decent size, more graphical detail, the inclusion of ships where you can train units is awesome from a tactical point of view.
And the monitors... man are they lovely.

Also population limits always pissed me off... but well, as you say, it was not uncommon.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Again, for the time it was releaseed, it had nice graphics, a physics engine which no one had yeet, and was in a time period rarely touched upon.

What else do you have to say Jesus?

Nope, it's not an RTS. But if i want a good RTS, il get Warcraft, if i want a game touching that timspan, il get Civilization. That's all i meant. Stop being fanboy of recent games Tyrong. It seems to you, that adding a shitload of features = Fun.

Jesus wrote:

Nope, it's not an RTS.

Then your comparative procedures are flawed.

Jesus wrote:

But if i want a good RTS, il get Warcraft,

And yet you haven't rebutted Tyrong's arguements on why AoE III is comparatively the least advanced AoE for its time.

Jesus wrote:

if i want a game touching that timspan, il get Civilization.

Which means you're not into RTSs touching that timespan which makes you unabel to evaluate the quality of an RTS that does.

Jesus wrote:

That's all i meant. Stop being fanboy of recent games Tyrong. It seems to you, that adding a shitload of features = Fun.

I don't see any trace of fanboyism in Tyrong. Actually you sound more of a [retro] fanboy - no solid arguements, certain irascibility and baseless critique of complexity.

By the way, more versatility and more features do enrich gameplay making it more fun, specialy in the case of an RTS like AoE.

Quote :

Nope, it's not an RTS.

Then why'd you say it was?

Quote :

But if i want a good RTS, il get Warcraft,

I prefer Starcraft.

Quote :

if i want a game touching that timspan, il get Civilization

Touching? Yeah, a TOUCH is all you really get with Civilisation.

Quote :

That's all i meant. Stop being fanboy of recent games Tyrong. It seems to you, that adding a shitload of features = Fun.

No, only that more features means I can do more things. When a new game comes out, they tend to not want to do the exact same things as before. They kind of want to do MORE. The things done already work, so they have that. And then they, wait for it, try to improve! How does recognising that make me a new game fanboy? I ahve never said old games weren't fun. Hell, I bought a used copy of Kingdom Under Fire: The Crusaders just today! I recently got the original Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout Tactics! I envjoy my emulator of Earthbound when I get a chance to play it, and I used to quite enjoy Chrono Trigger after beating it 20 times! I'm a new game fanboy? REALLY? Or are you jut trying to use the "I'm rubber and you're glue" medium on me? Hm?

Quote :

By the way, more versatility and more features do enrich gameplay making it more fun, specialy in the case of an RTS like AoE.

Nope... doesn't always. Look at the things i mentionned above, they got more features, but still sucked.

Jesus wrote:

Nope... doesn't always. Look at the things i mentionned above, they got more features, but still sucked.

If they're not RTS, then the comparison is not applicable. I'm talking about how an increase in variety on the features I've mentioned improves the gameplay on an RTS.

Quote :

Nope... doesn't always. Look at the things i mentionned above, they got more features, but still sucked.

Quote :

Ever heard of what happened to NFL Blitz? Thats what i mean...

Same thing for NHL, to me NHL 94 is still better than 09.

Same thing for Heroes of Might and Magic, went downhill after the 3rd.

Heroes MIGHT be considerd, RTS. The others? Wow, just wow.....

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Quote :

Nope... doesn't always. Look at the things i mentionned above, they got more features, but still sucked.

Quote :

Ever heard of what happened to NFL Blitz? Thats what i mean...

Same thing for NHL, to me NHL 94 is still better than 09.

Same thing for Heroes of Might and Magic, went downhill after the 3rd.

Heroes MIGHT be considerd, RTS. The others? Wow, just wow.....

If you believed i tought NHL was RTS, then your a fucking dumbass, so WoW yourself.

Quote :

Nope, it's not an RTS Then why'd you say it was?
! How does recognising that make me a new game fanboy? I ahve never said old games weren't fun. Hell, I bought a used copy of Kingdom Under Fire: The Crusaders just today! I recently got the original Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout Tactics! I envjoy my emulator of Earthbound when I get a chance to play it, and I used to quite enjoy Chrono Trigger after beating it 20 times!

Possesing games from the old times, doesn't make you less of a fanboy, if it did, i guess COD 4 Orange Box Skate Mass effect and so on, would make me immune.

Quote :

If you believed i tought NHL was RTS, then your a fucking dumbass, so WoW yourself.

You're the one who told us to look at those as games that got worse the more features were added. None of which I've played, namely because most were sports, ad the others are PC games. Now handhelds. I have neither. I know i have a PC, but I don't like gaming on it. Too expensive, and my system's shit.

Quote :

Possesing games from the old times, doesn't make you less of a fanboy, if it did, i guess COD 4 Orange Box Skate Mass effect and so on, would make me immune.

Saying more equalls worse, holding onto older with poor agruments and becomming irrationally hostile does. You a fanboy, I mean. but I ahve yet to call you a fanboy in this thread. Zeal has.

Quote :

Saying more equalls worse, holding onto older with poor agruments and becomming irrationally hostile does. You a fanboy, I mean. but I ahve yet to call you a fanboy in this thread. Zeal has

I said sometime it does, btw your dodging the point.¸

I've actually lost the point of what you're trying to say there. Explain, please? Sometimes what does what? And what am i dodging?

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

I've actually lost the point of what you're trying to say there. Explain, please? Sometimes what does what? And what am i dodging?

To defend yourself of being a Fanboy of the new games, you listed old games you bought/enjoyed but that doesn't give you immunity to being a new gen fanboy, as if it did, me possesing a plead of new games, would immune me from being an old school fanboy.

so what Ive caught about arguing in Video Game Forums, you just throw the term fanboy around throw blatantly pointless arguments in there?

Jesus, you don't seem to get what a fanboy stands for even though Tyrong explained it very clearly.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Jesus, you don't seem to get what a fanboy stands for even though Tyrong explained it very clearly.

Who the hell are you to define a word? The French Academy?